<wearing AD hat>
I think the proposed text changes would make RFC 4871 significantly
easier to understand, and less prone to multiple interpretations.
(I don't have a strong opinion about the content, though -- but
a clear spec is better than an ambiguous one.)
However, it seems we're not just fixing simple errors in the wording,
but adding new design that was... well, somewhat underspecified in
RFC 4871, or at the very least, not well understood at the time (or
understood in different ways by different folks).
That probably goes a bit beyond what should be changed using errata,
and I would suggest doing 4871bis instead. If there's rough consensus
about the content, I think it'd be possible to get it published as RFC
relatively quickly (say, well before the summer).
(Nonetheless, for discussing what needs to be fixed in RFC 4871, a
draft containing only the changes, like draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata,
is probably quite useful. Merging the changes to produce a 4871bis draft
can happen also after we've reached rough consensus on them.)
Best regards,
Pasi
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of ext Dave
CROCKER
Sent: 26 January, 2009 09:24
To: DKIM IETF WG; DKIM IETF WG
Subject: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871
Folks,
Howdy.
I've just submitted an Internet Draft with text for the
working group to
consider. A group of us have been working on it.
It clarifies and resolves the roles and relationship of the
d= and i= tag.
An html version of the I-D is at:
<http://dkim.org/specs/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-00.html>
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html